imhotep
Sun Sep 03 13:03:03 CDT 2006
Joe Richards [MVP] wrote:
> Microsoft is an Operating System AND application company, for the most
> part yes, they would tend to want to people to run apps on their OS,
> only an idiot would expect otherwise.
Correction: Microsoft is a software company
Here is the problem I have with your argument. As stated, Microsoft is a
software company. Why not sell your software for other platforms? Apple
makes software that runs on Windows. Open Source developers support all
OSes. In fact, Microsoft could earn *more* money buy selling the their
software on more than just Microsoft OSes. The problem is that Microsoft
tries to trap people into using their platform by only making software for
it. Now ask yourself, if you believe your product is the best why do you
need to try and play foolish games by trapping people?
That fact you don't need to be an idiot to understand either.
P.S On a personal note, I really don't care if Microsoft makes their
software on other platforms. Three or four years ago I did but, now that
the Open Source community makes software that fully competes, or is better,
than Microsoft's. In a way, Microsoft helped the Open Source community. For
example, you could never make me give up my Open Office even if you gave me
a free copy of MS Office.
> Companies don't run with the goal
> to make less money... That doesn't mean, however, that they completely
> shun the other OSes. Microsoft, for instance, has produced and sold a
> tremendous amount of software for the Mac. I would expect that sales
> number would only be second to Apple.
I guess you have never used the Mac version of outlook have you. It sucks.
It sucks intentionally. You like throwing out these arguments without any
research don't you? I suggest you try doing more research *before* making
such comments.
> If the market share of Linux actually justified creating MSFT software
> for Linux, I would have no doubt that MSFT would jump into that market.
How can you use the "Market Share" argument when Linux is Free (as well as
the numerous applications). You can't measure "Market Share" when there are
no true accurate measurements with regards to Market Share and Open Source.
You can't go to the Debian Linux community and ask for the number of
licenses now can you?
> Right now, Linux is still but a rounding error and not worth the effort
> on the part of MSFT's resources to work on it. While Linux remains a
> small niche player except for a couple of niche areas, the likelihood of
> MSFT doing something for it remains quite small.
I guess you don't follow Linux too much. Yet again, your throwing out a
comment with little to zero research. You really should stop that, it makes
you sound, well, uninformed.
Ask yourself this. Why would MS fight The State of Massachusetts so hard
when they were considering moving *all* documents to a open standard? If
they feel that Open Source / Open Standards are so insignificant why did
they care so much? When the German Government moved an entire city to Open
Source / Open Standards why did My Balmer personally fly to Germany to
plead his case? Maybe he just wanted to build up his frequent flier
miles...
> Personally I would quite like to see MSFT get seriously into the BSD
> space; I think they could drive it right over the Linux space. I think
> it is telling that Apple chose BSD distribution over the multitude of
> Linux distributions and like Apple, I think MSFT can make a solid go of
> it. The licensing is more realistic for the corporate world and you
> don't have to be bothered by the rantings of Stallman and GNU. I quite
> expect even Linus wishes he never got tied up in that.
Why? As a "BSD" user (specifically FreeBSD, the OS I am using now) why do
you think that MS or anyone could drive a wedge between Linux and BSD
communites. You see the people that use each of these have a high level of
cooperation and are *not* out to get each other. In fact, even Apple has a
good relationship with the open source community. Research Safari and you
will see cooperation with the KDE Conquer developers (in fact Safari has a
lot of KDE code within it).
Really, everyone *except* Microsoft cooperates with each other. That fact,
is what spawned of this thread...and is often ignored by people like you.
> The OSS optimists have been predicting Linux would be a significant
> threat to Microsoft in the next couple of years since the late 90's and
> here we are in the back end of the 00's and still it hasn't come to
> fruition.
BS!!! It was predicted recently that Linux would be a threat (some "experts
saying about 3 years away). And if you really want to get accurate, it was
Open Source specifically that was the threat to Microsoft.
And yes, this has come to Fruition and continues. Governments have moved
this way (Germany, Brazil and China). Even the US DOD has writtent articles
saying this should be the way to go here in the US (research articles I
have posted as this is one of them). The US state of Massachusetts has
MANDATED Open standards (non ms doc, etc) for all government documents,
etc, etc, etc.
The move is on, you just have not been paying attention.
> If you see linux in most large companies as anything other
> than a web server it is a shock. To see it on someone's desktop who
> isn't a DNS/DHCP network service or Web support admin it is a massive
> shock. I actually can't recall the last time I saw Linux running on
> someone's desktop in a large company except for in one of my virtual
> machines.
Really? My company does. In fact we are 100% Linux on the Servers and 40% on
desktops ( the rest is Apple and MS ). He have saved Millions. Yes, that is
right Millions by moving to Linux.
...and yes, we are quite successful.
Again, you show me you really don't have too much of a clue in this area.
Sorry for my bluntness. But I am blunt. I would suggest that you do more
hands on research *then* come back and talk to me...When you know Linux as
well as Windows lets talk. Right now all you are doing is illustrating your
lack of knowledge in his area...
> The biggest issues I see with Linux at the moment are GNU which many
> corporations are afraid to go near (I work in the Enterprise space and
> hear this directly) and the fragmentation in the Linux world which also
> scares many people.
OK, I bite. Why does GNU scare anyone? Do these people *really* know what
GNU is?
Second, Linux is no more "fragmented" than Windows 2000 to Windows 2003. Yes
there are differences, but if you know one, you can quickly get up to speed
on the other.
> Also, there is the side problem that as Linux tries
> to become more of a corporate/desktop OS, it has distinct possibility to
> alienate many of the folks who made Linux as good as it is. I know
> several folks who have been at it from early on that started moving away
> from it for those reasons.
What??????????????????????
Please explain that fallacy.
> Finally if Microsoft wanted into the Linux market producing a Linux OS,
> they would probably just buy Red Hat or Novell/SUSE or both and Apache
> for good measure.
You can't buy Apache. Second, MS would never do this because then, they
could not make software that is incompatible with other platforms anymore.
Remember this is how they hook you in....
> They could do that with barely a noticeable dent in
> their finances. BillG could personally buy them both if he wanted. If
> they did so, they would be able heavily influence if not outright
> control any future direction and development. IMO, that would be the
> best thing to happen to any of those companies but I don't see it
> happening. Microsoft doesn't see the value and frankly neither do I.
Here you illustrate your ignorance to the open standard philosophy. Open
Source people do not want to dominate anything, nor do they care. They want
software to work. They do not want these BS games being played on them like
paying to report a bug. How about the virus scam. You *PAY* Microsoft to
secure their operating system when they should do it for free (and are
responsible for the insecurities to begin with). This is called "double
billing". Suckers.
The real problem here is simple. I have read your arguments and you talk
like you are a financial investor. Market shares this, dominance that. See,
in all this talk you really missed the point. I am talking technology and
the merits thereof, you are talking about Bill G domination....Are you
technology guy or are you a marketer?
--Imhotep
Software Engineer and Successfully convert to Open Source
> joe
>
>
>
>
> --
> Joe Richards Microsoft MVP Windows Server Directory Services
> Author of O'Reilly Active Directory Third Edition
> www.joeware.net
>
>
> ---O'Reilly Active Directory Third Edition now available---
>
>
http://www.joeware.net/win/ad3e.htm
>
>
> imhotep wrote:
>>
>> Well, you need to review the Microsoft business model. Microsoft will not
>> make Linux applications because then people would have a choice on what
>> platform they wish to run. Microsoft does not want this. It is a shame
>> that they do not have the foresight to see that this would be a smart
>> move....
>>
>> Again, Microsoft really does need to rethink their business model...
>>
>> -- Imhotep